Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

How do Lonely, Young Adults Perceive Interactive Technologies With Varying Human-Likeness? An Experimental Lab Study

Horstmann, Aike, Boußard, Jacqueline·2024
DOI 10.31219/osf.io/7avf8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

For young adults in particular, it is proposed that interactive technologies can help alleviate loneliness. However, while state loneliness was found to lead to a more positive evaluation of interactive technologies, general loneliness was found to have the opposite effect. Since interactive technologies vary regarding their human-likeness in appearance and behavior, it needs to be investigated how this affects the perception of young adults while considering potential effects of their loneliness. In an experimental lab study with a 2x2 between-subjects design, 101 participants aged 18-35 years interacted either with a social robot or a voice assistant which either displayed a rather human-like or machine-like communication style. General and state loneliness were assessed alongside evaluations of the interactive technology. Overall, the participants appeared to be more comfortable the more their interaction partner looked and talked in a human-like manner. The self-reported state loneliness was very low and appeared to have no influence on evaluations. General loneliness hints towards a trend towards a more negative evaluation of the interactive technology’s social attractiveness - a finding that should be further investigated in future studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31219/osf.io/7avf8

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Study Setup With Voice Assistant Alexa (left) or Social Robot Nao (right)
Figure 1 Study Setup With Voice Assistant Alexa (left) or Social Robot Nao (right)CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [32]Sijia Li, Feng Yu, and Kaiping Peng. 2020. Effect of state loneliness on robot anthropomorphism: Potential edge of social robots compared to common nonhumans. Fournal of Physics: Conference Series 1631, 1, 12024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/17426596/1631/1/012024. · DOI
  2. [34]Eetu Marttila, Aki Koivula, and Pekka Räsänen. 2021. Does excessive social media use decrease subjective well-being? A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between problematic use, loneliness and life satisfaction. Telematics and Informatics 59, 101556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101556. · DOI
  3. [35]Junya Nakanishi, Jun Baba, Itaru Kuramoto, Kohei Ogawa, Yuichiro Yoshikawa, and Hroshi Ishiguro. 2020. Smart speaker vs. social robot in a case of hotel room. In 2020 IEEE/RSF International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 11391–11396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9341537. · DOI
  4. [36]Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Fournal of Social Issues 56, 1, 81–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153. · DOI · Paper page
  5. [37]L. A. Peplau and D. Pertman. 1982. Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy. Wiley.
  6. [38]Cynthia L. Pickett, Wendi L. Gardner, and Megan Knowles. 2004. Getting a cue: the need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 30, 9, 1095-1107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262085. · DOI · Paper page
  7. [39]Samira Rasouli, Garima Gupta, Elizabeth Nilsen, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2022. Potential applications of social robots in robot-assisted interventions for social anxiety. International Journal of Social Robotics 14, 5, 1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00851-0. · DOI
  8. [40]Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press.
  9. [41]Astrid Rosenthal-von der Putten, Carolin Strassmann, and Martina Mara. 2017. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...The effects of narration and appearance on the perception of robots. In 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication - RO-MAN '17. IEEE, 1169–1174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172452. · DOI
  10. [42]Kennon M. Sheldon and Alexander Gunz. 2009. Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential requirements. Fournal of Personality 77, 5, 1467–1492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00589.x. · DOI · Paper page
  11. [43]Eeske van Roekel, Maaike Verhagen, Rutger C. M. E. Engels, Ron H. J. Scholte, Stephanie Cacioppo, and John T. Cacioppo. 2018. Trait and state levels of loneliness in early and late adolescents: Examining the differential reactivity hypothesis. Fournal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 47, 6, 888–899. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1146993. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Horstmann, A., & Boußard, J.
ORCID
Horstmann, Aike
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2024-05-21
DOI
10.31219/osf.io/7avf8
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (unspecified)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.